Does this get rid of world wide third party ads? Or just American base ads? We do not have jurisdiction over foreign ads do we?
But I'll sign the petition. Is there an age requirement? Like being able to vote?

Ok, I read the initial post and there are some falsehoods. I'm not in favor of the bill, because I don't think that congressman has the first clue
about cookies. However, losing cookies does NOT mean the end for small or midsize sites.

I have created and designed a 3rd party ad network as is being described here, it is NOT the end of the world.

That tracking cookie is used for serving unique ads to people. It's main purpose is to give the user a unique identifier so the ad network knows
what ads they have or haven't seen.

However, it is not in anyway the only way to do that. The only advantage to the cookie over the ip address is that the cookie will in most cases
stay among ip address changes. Tracking can still be done based on ip if all else fails.

A cookie is NOT required to show someone and ad. Overstating the effect and need of the cookie is not a good thing to do.

Because the above is also the reason why the bill is STUPID. If you think something like that little cookie is going to stop me from "tracking"
the person, then they are delusional. The ip address is required for a connection, and that number is just as unique as a cookie. It's really
no different than someone deleting all cookies when the browser closes.

It's not by that tracking cookie that I know where you are within 50 miles, it's by your ip address. It's not by that tracking cookie that I am
connecting to your PC, it's by your ip address.

Furthermore, the option is already available for all users. It's in the browser settings. Nobody ever forces the user to accept 3rd party
cookies. Every connection you make including that cookie is by user choice.

Plus, when does making something illegal stop it from happening? If they really cared, all they really need to do is get browsers to add a thing
that popups any 3rd party cookie by default, rather than turning on the option manually.

If he gave a crap about the internet, he would be focusing on all the fraud that comes from places like China. People in china will just straight up
still your site and the content without much worry.

In the end, all it could ever do is give users a false sense of security, because in reality it offers none. It will be a minor headache for ad
companies.

Stupid law and I oppose it completely, but it's not the end of small sites etc.

The battle over a free Internet started a few years back. The hunt for pirates is not really about them losing money, its about implementing as much
control over the Internet as possible.

Now they have realized that most web sites depend on money to survive, so they try make sure they get run out of business. Its not about them not
understanding cookies, its about them using others ignorance about them. Its the typical fear propaganda. Problem - Crisis - Solution. We all know the
pattern.

I hope everyone who reads this thread understands how huge of a problem this really is possibly going to be. I don't even understand why the big
corporations would want this to happen since they rely on small independent websites to advertise for them as well (although for example google,
doesn't need much ads). I'm down to help anyway possible, unfortunately I have no money to donate at this time, but if they time comes to do so, I
will try.

ATS needs a benefactor badly... maybe someone rich will decide to help the site out, there has to be someone with spare $$$ out there!

I don't necessarily LIKE the ads that track my internet use (I clicked on a hotel ad one time, and now every banner ad is for a hotel)...

--HOWEVER--

I understand that the "free to use" internet sites rely on advertisers, just like free TV relies on advertisers, so I can put up with those
advertisers who track my internet use via 3rd party cookies -- as long as I get free internet content in return.

Any chance of passage is too much. I would hope that these idiots in Washington's halls of poseur would have more native intelligence than to go
along with something so monumentally stupid...but these are politicians.

I couldn't get with Pete directly, I did how ever dictate 5 mins worth of my letter to his DC office secretary. I'll call the Michigan office after
this is posted.

I'll be getting a phone call responce on his stance of the legislature.

Indivuals whom are pressure groups, I love being one.

Merit or not, ATS has a policy that stands by our members. Any and all ads which have offended, bothered or hindered our ATSers has been evaluated b
the Amigos.

But the facts are ATS is a free site, financed by ad revenue from online advertisements. We are a staff operated and owned online community.

That is why this issue is important to us. Heck the members and their privacy so valuable that we had considered security encrypting the website if
members felt is was warrented. ATS at one point could have been a "https".

I think the problem is that when given the choice most would opt out. If most people are opting out, then why would advertisers pay to advertise on
that website. Thus the reasoning behind taking revenues away from small and medium websites.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.